Performance & Improvement Panel
Estate Services Review
1) Introduction
The Performance & Improvement Panel (PIP) was involved in the Estate Services Review
throughout July and August 2012. To be able to successfully complete the Estate Services
Review, PIP members worked in partnership with estate management and repairs staff. The
following report highlights how the review was carried out together with the main learning
outcomes. Estate services cover a wide range of practical tasks to communal areas of land, which
are carried out on behalf of customers, who are then charged for these services. For the purposes
of the review, the following estate services were examined:






Cutting grass
Maintaining shrubs and flower beds
Hedges
Tree works
Hard landscaping
Signs and benches
Over the course of 2012 unusually long periods of wet weather were experienced. This weather
had an effect on both growing rates and contractors’ ability to undertake certain work. However,
PIP members felt during their observation period the weather was fine enough for them to gauge
what is currently being delivered.
1) Purpose of the review
Through feedback received as part of the Survey of Tenants and Residents (STAR) and regular
feedback from customers who are Local Monitors, Broadacres are aware that some customers are
not entirely satisfied with the estate services they receive. Customers who completed the STAR
were least satisfied with estate services and less satisfied with the value for money that these
services provided, compared to value for money relating to their rent. Broadacres requested the
involvement of PIP members in the Estate Services Review prior to the current external delivery
contracts expiring during March 2013. The aim of the review was to explore customers’
perceptions of how successful the service deliveries of these contracts are. The information
gathered as part of the review will help to direct the new contract specifications being issued in the
future and how these services will be delivered in the future.
2) Review Methodology
An initial discussion was held during a PIP meeting to define both the remit of the estate service
review as well identifying the methods which would be used by PIP members to undertake the
review. The different sources of evidence to be considered during the review included:

PIP members’ observations
Three members of the Panel would complete a questionnaire on the areas near to where
they live. PIP members would visit the areas both before and after work had taken place.

Local Monitors
Customers who are Local Monitors would be asked to complete a questionnaire with
assistance from their Estate Management Officer.
1

Dissatisfied customers
Customers who had been dissatisfied with estate services as part of the recent STAR
survey would be contacted by Estate Management Officers and asked for more detailed
feedback.

STAR Focus Groups
Customers who responded to the survey were invited to take part in local focus groups to
expand their views.
3) Review Findings
PIP Members’ observations
All the observations gathered by the three PIP members are contained within appendices 1a, 1b,
1c and 2. The areas covered included Hollygarth in Great Ayton, Oswaldene in Osmotherly and
parts of Bedale/Aiskew.
The main issues identified by PIP members were:
Hedges
Concerns that hedges were not
cut back effectively, in terms of the
original heights, and therefore had
grown to be unmanageable.
Some concerns were also raised
that the hedges were not being cut
as often as they should be.
Grass Cutting
Maintaining Shrubs and
Concern grass was being cut in Flowerbeds
the wet and edges were not No issues identified.
being cut.
Concern waste bins were not
always being emptied.
Signs and Bench Maintenance
Concern that wooden benches
need repairing/maintaining on a
regular basis or would become
untidy.
Trees
Better management of the
collection of fallen leaves was
felt to be needed, particularly in
areas with many trees. When
left on footpaths the leaves
become dangerous as a slip
hazard, particularly when damp
and icy.
Hard Landscaping
Concern that weeds
were not being treated,
particularly in parking
and seating areas.
Local Monitors
Estate Management Officers initiated contacted with over 40 local monitors to request they
completed a questionnaire with their assistance. Sixteen local monitors chose to engage in this
activity and completed the questionnaire. All of the feedback gathered from local monitors is
contained within appendix 1d.
2
The main issues identified by local monitors were:
Hedges
Issues with the quality of the cut
and hedges not being cut back to
their
original
height.
One
suggestion that the hedges
should be cut more often.
Grass Cutting
Issues with grass clippings
being left and blowing onto
property. Issue with quality of
cut in terms of cutting too fast
and not cutting to a low enough
height. In areas where the
contract specifies clippings are
removed
customers
were
pleased with this approach.
Signs and Bench Maintenance
Trees
Regular checking needed. One Issues with collection of fallen
issue relating to poor quality of leaves, particularly in terms of
paint work on benches.
blocking drains and gutters.
Some concern about height of
trees, falling branches and
closeness to properties.
Maintaining Shrubs and
Flowerbeds
Generally customers felt
this wasn’t being done.
High levels of litter were
mentioned in one area.
Hard Landscaping
Concern that weeds
were not being treated
and look unsightly.
Dissatisfied customers
Estate management officers spoke with 20 of the 41 customers that indicated they were very/fairly
dissatisfied with estate services as part of the STAR survey. 21 customers had moved house or
could not be contacted during the time period that the review was carried out. 12 of the customers
contacted didn’t express dissatisfaction with estate services, or had an unrelated issue. All of the
feedback gathered from dissatisfied customers is contained within appendix 1e.
The main issues relating to estate services that eight customers gave feedback on were:
Hedges
High and need cutting.
Signs and Bench Maintenance
No issues raised.
Grass Cutting
Unhappy with the quality of the
cut. Would like clippings to be
collected. Some customers were
prepared to pay extra for
collection of grass clippings.
Trees
Trees removed but hole in the
ground remaining - needs to be
filled as dangerous.
Maintaining Shrubs and
Flowerbeds
Weeds being cut and
not pulled out. Not
enough
care
and
attention in this area.
Hard Landscaping
No issues
STAR Focus Groups
Focus groups were held in Great Ayton, Northallerton and Easingwold during the month of May.
Customers who completed the STAR Survey and had agreed to further contact were invited to
attend. In total 15 customers attended the groups. The notes of the focus groups that relate to
estate services are contained within appendix 1f.
3
Comments received about the quality of grass cutting mirrored those of the other customer groups
previously discussed in this report. Tree pruning and the levels of moss on footpaths/roofs was
highlighted as an issue. A suggestion was made that customers should be involved in signing off
the quality of the work undertaken. A comment was made that the current service would represent
value for money if the correct service was received. Some customers at the groups were unclear
about estate service charges, in terms of how much and what they were paying for.
4) Conclusions
 Generally the PIP members feel that the contractors do fulfil the specifications of the
contracts but, in their opinion, feel that contractors need to take more time with attention
to detail and producing a higher standard of quality work.
 PIP members question if contractors are unrealistic about the amount of time and costs
involved in delivering on these contracts; if the contractors provide a lower cost to win
the contract and then find it difficult to deliver the contract specifications. PIP members,
therefore, recognise that improvements to the quality of the service delivered could
increase costs. Increased costs would impact on the service charges customers are
asked to pay as well as customer perceptions relating to value for money. Conversely
cost savings could also be achieved.
5) Recommendations
PIP members would like Broadacres to:
 As part of the tendering and setting up of new contracts there should be a focus on
continual monitoring of the quality of what is being delivered.
 Involve a member of the PIP and other customer groups in the specification setting and
tendering process for the new contracts.
 Provide them with annual information on how the new contractors are performing.
 Formalise the commitment within the Customer Contract to develop a procedure to
allow local monitors (or other willing customers in areas where there is no local monitor)
the opportunity to play an active role in signing off the quality of estate services work
undertaken by contractors. PIP members understand the success of this is dependent
on whether customers are willing to undertake this role and request that Broadacres
queries with potential contractors what their approach to this would be.
 Follow up and feedback to Local Monitors and dissatisfied customers about their queries
raised as part of the review that fall outside the scope of the review.
Appendices:
Appendix 1 a) to 1c) – PIP findings
Appendix 1 d) – Local Monitor findings
Appendix 1 e) – Feedback from dissatisfied customers
Appendix 1 f) – STAR Focus Groups
Appendix 2 – PIP findings photographic evidence from Osmotherley
4